Talk:Dhaulagiri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusion[edit]

Into Thin Air lists Dhaulagiri as the sixth highest mountain in the world, while this article lists it as the seventh. But I have the hardcover version, dated November 1996, so has another mountain been discovered, or it is just a first printing edition mistake? Hbdragon88 02:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The book is in error. See Eight-thousander. RedWolf 04:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not count Lhotse as a separate mountain (which is defensible, although virtually no one makes that choice) then Dhaulagiri becomes number 6. Also, the heights of Dhaulagiri and Manaslu are not known precisely enough to be certain that Manaslu is not higher; this would make Dhaulagiri number 8. All that said, the standard listing has Dhaulagiri at number 7. -- Spireguy 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parent Mountain[edit]

Can anybody tell the parent mountain of Dhaulagiri regarding prominence? There are sources that claim it's Mount Everest, but could this be correct? The highest ridge from Dhaulagiri to Everest would much likely pass over Cho Oyu first, wouldn't it? Thanks in advance--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parent of Dhaulagiri is K2, according to the List of peaks by prominence. I think that's correct, although it's been years since I traced the relevant divides. I do know it's a close call, with the col linking to Cho Oyu/Mount Everest not being much lower than the col linking to K2. So since it's almost a toss-up, and since all possible parents are far away, it's one of the situations where the prominence parent has relatively little significance (i.e. it doesn't provide you with much extra information). -- Spireguy (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information at mongabay is not correct. To draw a line from Dhaulagiri to Everest you have to go at least as low as Mustang Lo, 4594m. The line from Dhaulagiri to K2 is longer but can remain as high as a remote 4810m pass on the Tibet plateau. I carried out the research in 2004 using SRTM data. It was independently confirmed by another researcher. Viewfinder (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. I obviously totally forgot about my question some month ago. That happens when you don't watch your watchlist... Shame on me. And thank you guys very much for your help. But I'm not sure if I can agree with the statement about little significance. I myself (at least) find it rather interesting to know that - derived from that fact - the Kali Gandakhi Valley is such a deep cut into the continent. Annapurna and Dhaulagiri are standing very close together, they look like siblings but no, they have different parents. That's something :-) --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other peaks in the Dhaulagiri Himalaya" world rank 72[edit]

Hello. With no other knowledge than what's provided in the table and the footnotes, it looks to me like ranking Dhaulagiri VI at number 72 is in error because Dhaulagiri VI does not meet the 500m prominence criterion. Should it be Churen Himal (Main) instead?Wikimedes (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yes the 72 rank belongs to Churen Himal (main). I have made the correction. Good catch. --Racerx11 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is another issue. It shows Churen Himal (main) with question mark under first ascent and List of highest mountains has it first climbed in 1970. I will look into this as well unless you or someone else has the solution. --Racerx11 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it says "unknown" but in any case, it appears the descrepancy about if and when it was climbed has something to do with the differing sources on the elevation of these peaks as noted in the footnotes. I am unsure what correction, if any, is needed. Racerx11 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaulagiri VI listed twice[edit]

Dhaulagiri VI is listed twice on the table of other peaks in the Dhaulagiri Himalaya, with 2 different prominences. It appears that it was originally listed in the Churen Himal with a prominence of 485, then was added again with a prominence of 453 by this edit. Which is correct?--Wikimedes (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence is only accurate when cols as well as peaks have been accurately surveyed. Even with GPS fixes, vertical uncertainty is typically 2-3 times larger than horizontal. Also fixes taken in cols tend to have fewer satellites in view for obvious reasons.
Prominence is often estimated from contour maps giving a range of possibilities bounded by the most optimistic and the most pessimistic. SRTM data may also be used, but they give average elevations in cells several arc-seconds of latitude/longitude square, not readings at exact positions of cols. Obviously these are most accurate in broad saddles.LADave (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peakbagger.com gives 453 meters prominence, claiming the col between Dh.s IV and VI is 6,815 meters. Global.mongabay.com says 485 meters prominence but provides no explanation. If you look at the terrain map that pops up on peakbagger.com, you'd be tempted to say something over 500 meters prominence, but I'll assume that the contour maps underestimate col heights because they clearly underestimate peak elevations. I'm accepting peakbagger as the more credible of the two, pending further discussion. LADave (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good way to go. Though from the Google maps at peakbagger.com, it looks like any path to a higher peak has to dip below a 6800m contour line, resulting in >468m prominence. The 485m prominence may well be correct, but it's probably better to go with the source that lists the key col. (BTW, peakbagger.com lists the nearest higher peak, which may not be the parent peak used in the prominence calculation, if I understand things correctly.)--Wikimedes (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming "terrain" (contour) maps shown on Google Maps or Wikimapia derive from SRTM data, which are average elevations within cells. These again underestimate the ridgeline elevations we would want for prominence determination. Of course systematic bias will be greatest on "knife edge" ridges where ridgeline elevation most exceeds average elevation within its cell. Switching to satellite photo imagery shows a sharp ridgeline, because there is a sharp transition from sunlit south-facing slopes to shadow on the north side instead of the gradual transition you'd see along a whaleback ridge. Thus a 6815 meter col elevation is at least plausible despite what the contour map shows.LADave (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st winter ascent[edit]

Copied from User_talk:Ongulpenguin:

Hi Ongulpenguin, your edits on Dhaulagiri, Kukuczka and Eight-thousander‎ you are doing on all wikis are wrong. A "winter ascent" means starting from 21 December. For this types of records we don't consider ascents in "winter condition" but only ascents from 21 December (=winter season). Cya. --Rotpunkt (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is western calendar definition[1].. Remember that the Himalayan mountains are belong to the Eastern world. As a fact, Nepal and China’s permit winter season start is on December 1st. The arguments based on one-sided (western-only) views are not fair especially for this kind of encyclopedia items. Even accepted the western definition, the Japanese ascent in1982 is the evident fact. So, it should be added to the timeline record of the climbing history of Dhaulagiri. Ongulpenguin (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the right explanation it is better, however this is a well known concept in mountaineering (there are many not official ascents before 21 December, for example Lafaille on Shisha Pangma [1] and not only in Himalaya but also in Alps for example). The official first winter ascent remains to Kukuczka, and changing this fact on all wikis was wrong.--Rotpunkt (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Fact" and "Official" are not same. The fact in this case is the actual date reached on the summit, and the official is recognition and authorization of its significance by somebody. Who authorized the official first winter ascent ? Do you know who didi it? But I would not argue this point any more. Just leaving the statement of the "fact" that Nepali Government at that moment had authorized that Koizumi is the first winter ascenter. This must be the historical fact. Isn't it ? Ongulpenguin (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said before you can add the fact as an historical event however "permit winter season start" (December 1st) and "winter season start" (December 21th) are two different things.--Rotpunkt (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with the difference of the two.Ongulpenguin (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the mountaineering peaple, the astronomical definition of winter might be a well-known concept. But the general readers of the Wikipedia (including me) may not be familiar with that concept. I would recommend that definite criteria for the official recognition of the mountaineering activities in the winter season should be addressed clearly in the Wikipedia.Ongulpenguin (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry but your last edits in Dhaulagiri and winter are wrong again. As the mounteverest.net article says there is not a western calendar but a world calendar vs permit winter season: the article says "The world’s seasonal calendar has winter beginning on December 21st, whereas Nepal and China’s permit winter season start is on December 1st." I will add a note in the first ascent article, to make the criteria clear.--Rotpunkt (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I cannot find any definition of "world calendar winter " in the Wikipedia. Can you ? Instead, the only thing I found in the "winter" item of the Wikipedia to mach your arguments is "In the USA and Canada (and sometimes in Britain) the season is regarded as beginning at the solstice and ending on the following equinox – in the Northern Hemisphere, depending on the year, this corresponds to the period between 21 or 22 December and 19, 20 or 21 March". We (you and me ) are contributing to the Wikipedia. As far as we want to contribute to the Wikipedia, we have to respect the items in the Wikipedia to get a guarantee of objectivity. Wikipedia is NOT the place where individuals make their assertion. And, I do not believe the western people use the "world" properly. They tend to use such words ignoring the eastern culture. The use of "world" by western people are not always means "global". As far as referring to the "winter" item, one can find many definitions of winter. Your "world calendar" is NOT defined there, and your argument is only effective within the realm of USA and Canada's traditional. So, I AM NOT wrong. You ARE wrong as far as in the Wikipedia. I think we need the third opinion independent from you and me to solve this issue.Ongulpenguin (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End copied text.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(random unindent) I had not heard of the "world calendar" either, but that is what the cited source uses, so that is what we should use in the Wikipedia article unless another reliable source can be found that uses a better term. (According to Wikipedia's article Season, the December 1 beginning for winter is used in meteorology, whereas the December 21 beginning is from the customary timing of astronomy. The article also says that in southern maritime climates the meteorological dates are usually used as the official dates, whereas in northern continental climates, the astronomical dates are usually used, so it may be more of a northern vs. southern distinction than a western vs. eastern distinction (this section is uncited in the article, and I'm not sure it's accurate).) What's relevant for this article (Dhaulagiri) is what the mountaineering bodies that decide what constitute a winter ascent have adopted, and I'm pretty sure that it's the astronomical calendar (Dec 21) rather than the meteorological calendar (Dec 1).--Wikimedes (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Wikimedes I think that with the last additions (text and references) in first ascent (including Ongulpenguin fixes) the concept is clear. Thanks for your contributions here. --Rotpunkt (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Rotpunkt. I'm glad you were able to work it out. The first ascent article's coverage of winter ascents looks good to me as well, and has been improved by your and Ongulpenguin's additions.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Xexplorers web:The meaning of winter in 8000+ climbing

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dhaulagiri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhaulagiri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NbhinbMountain[edit]

Bhylk 2400:1A00:B030:6DB1:71E3:A6F7:3631:57C1 (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dhaulagiri&oldid=1194283236"